The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Lately there's been a lot of talk about personalized medicine. There's a bold idea going around that people should take control of their own healthcare and manage the flood of new data stemming from a whole bunch of new technologies, including, but hardly limited to, personal genomes, biomarkers, wireless sensors, and iPhone ECGs.

It is unclear how much any of this is ready for prime time in actual medical practice. Although the science and technology advance every day, and there is no question that these will one day play an important role in medical care, there are still very few actual instances where personalized medicine has been shown to benefit patients, and no reason to think that widespread application in the general population would result in significant benefits.

But let's assume for the moment that the technology does work and can benefit people. Does that mean most people would benefit if they took a more active role in obtaining this information (for example, by ordering a personal genome from 23andme.com), and then interpreting and acting upon the information?

It seems like a great idea, after all. Who could be more motivated than our own selves to decide what's best for us? Why rely on outside professionals who don't know us and will never care about us? The vision of empowered, highly educated and extremely motivated people harnessing new technologies to improve their own lives is attractive. What's not to like?

But let's scrutinize the subject a little more carefully. How well do people now handle even basic, noncontroversial medical information? The answer is sad. Consider-- just one typical example-- that every primary care physician spends an enormous amount of time dealing with patients who insist on an antibiotic prescription for treating the flu or the common cold, despite the overwhelming evidence showing that antibiotics are of absolutely no benefit in this setting. And this is a simple problem. The issues raised by a personal genome, by contrast, are more complex by multiple orders of magnitude. Most doctors aren't capable of interpreting this data. Why would most nonprofessionals do any better?

So for most people, serving as our own doctor is well-nigh impossible. Being a doctor isn't a part-time position or a hobby. A small number of smart, highly motivated people take the extreme effort necessary to become a doctor, but this isn't the path the vast majority of the rest of us have taken, can take, or even want to take. And even if we are wannabe Dr. Welbys and Dr. Houses, we don't have the necessary skills and fortitude and time to get a genuine medical education.

But, again, let's pretend for a second that we all did possess the necessary attributes to become doctors. Then we would need to ask another question: do we all want to be doctors? Even if it were possible, would that be desirable? Would that be a good use of our time? We also need engineers, artists, shopkeepers, scientists, teachers, truck drivers, and, even, journalists. I suspect most people are far better off spending time on their own pursuits and interests than obsessing over every data point of their health and genome.

It's also worth considering that trying to be your own doctor is probably not any better than trying to be your own lawyer. You know the saying: He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.

It's also important to recognize that this type of self-obsession over personalized health could never realistically play a big role in improving public health. Instead, this boutique-style healthcare is a lot like organic food, which may taste better and may help a few privileged people feel better about themselves, and may possibly yield a small individual health benefit (though there is absolutely no evidence to show this). However, there is absolutely no chance that organic food can be used to actually feed the vast majority of the 7 billion or so people currently living on this planet.

Similarly, taking control of individual health data will almost certainly allow a few privileged and obsessed people to feel they're better off than most. It may even improve their health. But, again, more importantly, there is no possibility in the foreseeable future that this self-management of extremely complex personal health data will improve the overall public health of the planet.

Finally, there's one other important danger that should be mentioned. Walk into any Whole Foods, GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, or natural food store. Take a look at the ubiquitous ads-- and featured content-- on Dr. Oz or a thousand other TV shows. Flip through almost any magazine or newspaper. It is immediately clear that the general public is highly susceptible to an amazingly broad array of dubious and downright fraudulent health claims for foods, supplements, pills, devices, diets etc. Imagine how these companies (and the new companies that will surely arise to take advantage of the personalized medicine explosion) will exploit the tsunami of data and studies that will arise from personal technologies. That will be a brave new world indeed.